To send this article to your account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about sending content to .

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.
Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

By using this service, you agree that you will only keep articles for personal use, and will not openly distribute them via Dropbox, Google Drive or other file sharing services.
Please confirm that you accept the terms of use.

The initial assessment of epistaxis patients commonly includes: first aid measures, observations, focused history taking, and clinical examinations and investigations. This systematic review aimed to identify evidence that informs how the initial assessment of these patients should be conducted.

Method:

A systematic review of the literature was performed using a standardised methodology and search strategy.

Sustained ambulatory hypertension, anticoagulant therapy and posterior bleeding may be associated with recurrent epistaxis, and should be recorded. Oral ice pack use may decrease severity and can be considered as first aid. Coagulation studies are appropriate for patients with a history of anticoagulant use or bleeding diatheses.

Cauterisation techniques are commonly used and widely accepted for the management of epistaxis. This review assesses which methods of intranasal cautery should be endorsed as optimum treatment on the basis of benefits, risks, patient tolerance and economic assessment.

Method:

A systematic review of the literature was performed using a standardised methodology and search strategy.

Results:

Eight studies were identified: seven prospective controlled trials and one randomised controlled trial. Pooling of data was possible from 3 studies, yielding a total of 830 patients. Significantly lower re-bleed rates were identified (p < 0.01) using electrocautery (14.5 per cent) when compared to chemical cautery (35.1 per cent). No evidence suggested that electrocautery was associated with more adverse events or discomfort. Limited evidence supported the use of a vasoconstrictor agent and operating microscope during the procedure. The included studies had considerable heterogeneity in terms of design and outcome measures.

Conclusion:

Consistent evidence suggests that electrocautery has higher success rates than chemical cautery, and is not associated with increased complications or patient discomfort. Lower quality evidence suggests that electrocautery reduces costs and duration of hospital stay.

The mainstay of management of epistaxis refractory to first aid and cautery is intranasal packing. This review aimed to identify evidence surrounding nasal pack use.

Method:

A systematic review of the literature was performed using standardised methodology.

Results:

Twenty-seven eligible articles were identified relating to non-dissolvable packs and nine to dissolvable packs. Nasal packing appears to be more effective when applied by trained professionals. For non-dissolvable packs, the re-bleed rates for Rapid Rhino and Merocel were similar, but were higher with bismuth iodoform paraffin paste packing. Rapid Rhino packs were the most tolerated non-dissolvable packs. Evidence indicates that 96 per cent of re-bleeding occurs within the first 4 hours after nasal pack removal. Limited evidence suggests that dissolvable packs are effective and well tolerated by patients. There was a lack of evidence relating to: the duration of pack use, the economic effects of pack choice and the appropriate care setting for non-dissolvable packs.

Conclusion:

Rapid Rhino packs are the best tolerated, with efficacy equivalent to nasal tampons. FloSeal is easy to use, causes less discomfort and may be superior to Merocel in anterior epistaxis cases. There is no strong evidence to support prophylactic antibiotic use.

The management of epistaxis requires an understanding of haematological factors that may complicate its treatment. This systematic review includes six distinct reviews examining the evidence supporting epistaxis-specific management strategies relating to warfarin, direct oral anticoagulants, heparin, antiplatelet agents, tranexamic acid and transfusion.

Method:

A systematic review of the literature was performed using a standardised methodology and search strategy.

Results:

Limited numbers of articles were identified in each systematic review, with level 1 evidence only regarding the use of tranexamic acid. No studies met the inclusion criteria within the heparin, direct oral anticoagulants or transfusion systematic reviews. Many studies were limited by small sample sizes and significant risk of bias.

Conclusion:

The management of major bleeding and transfusion practice is well documented in national guidance from multiple sources. The guidelines include advice on anticoagulants, antiplatelet agents and tranexamic acid. In the absence of more specific evidence, these guidelines should be applied in the management of epistaxis.

There is variation regarding the use of surgery and interventional radiological techniques in the management of epistaxis. This review evaluates the effectiveness of surgical artery ligation compared to direct treatments (nasal packing, cautery), and that of embolisation compared to direct treatments and surgery.

Method:

A systematic review of the literature was performed using a standardised published methodology and custom database search strategy.

Results:

Thirty-seven studies were identified relating to surgery, and 34 articles relating to interventional radiology. For patients with refractory epistaxis, endoscopic sphenopalatine artery ligation had the most favourable adverse effect profile and success rate compared to other forms of surgical artery ligation. Endoscopic sphenopalatine artery ligation and embolisation had similar success rates (73–100 per cent and 75–92 per cent, respectively), although embolisation was associated with more serious adverse effects (risk of stroke, 1.1–1.5 per cent). No articles directly compared the two techniques.

Conclusion:

Trials comparing endoscopic sphenopalatine artery ligation to embolisation are required to better evaluate the clinical and economic effects of intervention in epistaxis.

Epistaxis is a common condition that can be associated with significant morbidity, and it places a considerable burden on our healthcare system. This national audit of management sought to assess current practice against newly created consensus recommendations and to expand our current evidence base.

Methods:

The management of epistaxis patients who met the inclusion criteria, at 113 registered sites across the UK, was compared with audit standards during a 30-day window. Data were further utilised for explorative analysis.

Results:

Data for 1826 cases were uploaded to the database, representing 94 per cent of all cases that met the inclusion criteria at participating sites. Sixty-two per cent of patients were successfully treated by ENT clinicians within 24 hours. The 30-day recurrent presentation rate across the dataset was 13.9 per cent. Significant event analysis revealed an all-cause 30-day mortality rate of 3.4 per cent.

Epistaxis is a common ENT emergency in the UK; however, despite the high incidence, there are currently no nationally accepted guidelines for its management. This paper seeks to recommend evidence-based best practice for the hospital management of epistaxis in adults.

Methods:

Recommendations were developed using an Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (‘AGREE II’) framework. A multifaceted systematic review of the relevant literature was performed and a multidisciplinary consensus event held. Management recommendations were generated that linked the level of supporting evidence and a Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (‘GRADE’) score explaining the strength of recommendation.

Recommendations:

Despite a paucity of high-level evidence, management recommendations were formed across five management domains (initial assessment, cautery, intranasal agents, haematological factors, and surgery and radiological intervention).

Conclusion:

These consensus recommendations combine a wide-ranging review of the relevant literature with established and rigorous methods of guideline generation. Given the lack of high-level evidence supporting the recommendations, an element of caution should be used when implementing these findings.